JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - This is a suit for khas possession of certain land, on the ground that the Defendant who was one of the tenants of the land has forfeited his interest by denying the Plaintiff's title as landlord and that the lease has determined under sub-sec. (g) of sec. 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Munsif decreed the suit, and, the Subordinate Judge has dismissed it with costs, on the ground that the lessee has not renounced his character as such either by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself. The Plaintiffs have appealed. 2. We must take the fact as found by the lower Appellate Court. It appears that the lease in question was granted by two persons of the name, Lakhu and Mohabat, on the 18th of Falgoon 1293. It was a mourasi mokarari potta, and the Defendant with his brother who was a co-lessee and who is since dead, but whose heirs are not parties to this suit, executed a kabuliyat corresponding to the pottah, in favour of Lakhu and Mohabat. It appears that at any rate in the years 1892 and 1893, dakhillas were granted to the Defendant and they purported to have been given on behalf of Lakhu and Mohabat and not on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs claim under a hebanama dated the 20th of Magh 1292, which was a year or so in date prior to that of the lease to which I have referred. The Plaintiffs' rights under the hebanama are not very clear. But the Subordinate Judge finds that "Even if the Plaintiffs really obtained any rights under the hebanama they allowed their grantors" (that is to say Lakhu and Mohabat) "still to exercise the right of ownership by granting registered pottah to tenant and by realising rent from him. So by their conduct the Plaintiffs induced the Defendant to believe that they had acquired no right." It appears, however, that the Plaintiffs brought two rent suits in the years 1891 and 1895, against both the tenants under the above lease, and recovered rent. So by their conduct the Plaintiffs induced the Defendant to believe that they had acquired no right." It appears, however, that the Plaintiffs brought two rent suits in the years 1891 and 1895, against both the tenants under the above lease, and recovered rent. In those suits the Defendants set up that as regards a part of the property, some 10 cottas, they had never been able to obtain possession of it and that in consequence they had to execute a registered kabuliyat in favour of a certain Municipality which claimed to be entitled to those 10 cottas, and paid rent to it. It is suggested that in those rent-suits the present Defendant denied the title of the Plaintiffs. But it has been very properly conceded that inasmuch as after those rent-suits assuming the Plaintiffs to be the Defendants' landlord they received rent, they cannot rely upon that denial as a ground of forfeiture. In 1901, the present Plaintiffs again brought a suit, apparently against the present Defendant only, claiming an injunction; and, in that suit the defence was-- unfortunately the defence is not before us and I am taking it from the finding of the Subordinate Judge--that the Plaintiffs' hebanama was fraudulent and collusive and that the Plaintiffs had acquired no right under it, and that the Defendant was not a tenant-at-will, as the Plaintiffs had set up in that suit, but a permanent lease-holder under Lakhu and Mohabat, and that the Defendant had been unable to obtain possession of 10 cottas out of the land leased to him by Lakhu and Mohabat as the Government had acquired it and subsequently sold it to the Naraingunj Municipality and the Defendant was obliged to take a fresh lease from the said Municipality. The finding of the Subordinate Judge as regards the 10 cottas in respect of which the Defendant set up the right of the Municipality is that "the evidence, which is on the record, shows satisfactorily that the Defendant failed to obtain possession of the 10 cottas and informed Lakhu of the fact, but Lakhu did not stir and finally the Defendant executed a registered kabuliyat in favour of the Municipality and has been paying rent to it." There are other findings of the Subordinate Judge which are material for the purpose of the present decision. The Judge says, "I have shown that the Plaintiffs by their conduct induced the Defendant to believe that they are mere benamdars of Lakhu and Mohabat and that the Defendant had very solid reasons for saying all he said regarding the 10 cottas in question and that his defence in the injunction suit was a substantially true one and made in good faith." He goes on to Bay, "In none of the three suits the Defendant renounced his character as lessee. On the contrary, he stuck to the registered pattah (H) granted by the Plaintiff's grantors, throughout. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, received rent from him up to 1305." "The defence," says the Judge, "in the injunction suit was the same defence as was made in the second rent-suits and the Plaintiffs waived the forfeiture alleged to have occurred on the Defendant's denial in these suits. The fact seems to be that the Defendant never refused to pay rent to Lakhu and Mohabat, though he has been obliged to take a fresh lease under the Municipality for the 10 cottas which bad been acquired by the Government." And he finds that "as the Defendant has improved the land which has become valuable, they (the Plaintiffs) are harassing the Defendant to compel him to give up the land." Those are the facts upon which we have to come to our conclusion. 3. The first point is that the lessors of the Defendant are Lakhu and Mohabat, whatever the arrangements may have been between them and the Plaintiffs. The Defendant has never renounced his character as their lessee. All he did and all he said was that inasmuch as he could not get possession of the 10 cottas in respect of which he Bet up the right of the Municipality, and as he could get no satisfaction from his lessors, he had to make the best term he could with the Municipality in order to prevent them from turning him off the land, the 10 cottas. That is not a renunciation of his character as lessee under the lease. The finding is, as I have Bald, that he stuck to the registered potta and that has been his case throughout. Is this then a case of forfeiture? That is not a renunciation of his character as lessee under the lease. The finding is, as I have Bald, that he stuck to the registered potta and that has been his case throughout. Is this then a case of forfeiture? Although in the two suits to which reference has been made, the Defendants paid rent to the Plaintiffs and in that sense the latter may have been recognised by the former for the purpose of those suits as their lessors, in point of strictness and of fact they are not and never were the lessors of the Defendant, nor are they transferees from the lessors; for, the hebanama under which they claim was executed some time before the lease in question. 4. Then there is another difficulty in the Plaintiffs' path. There were two lessees, one of them is dead and his interest passed to his heirs but they are not parties to the suit. It is not suggested that they have renounced their character as lessees. How then can sec. 111 apply. The section deals with the whole lease of the immoveable property comprised therein and not with a part or moiety of it. The words are "a lease of immoveable property" that means the lease in its entirety. There has been no renunciation by the other lessee. I doubt in these circumstances if the section can apply. At any rate, the heirs not having been made parties to this suit, this question cannot be determined in their absence. 5. It is upon the Plaintiffs to make out that the lessee has renounced his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in him-self. The finding of the lower Court is that he has done nothing of the sort. The finding is that far from repudiating the lease the Defendant, as I have said, stuck to the registered lease. If so, the Plaintiffs' claim to relief being based upon this alleged forfeiture and no such forfeiture in my opinion having taken place, the suit fails and the decision of the Subordinate Judge was right. 6. The finding is that far from repudiating the lease the Defendant, as I have said, stuck to the registered lease. If so, the Plaintiffs' claim to relief being based upon this alleged forfeiture and no such forfeiture in my opinion having taken place, the suit fails and the decision of the Subordinate Judge was right. 6. I may add that it is unnecessary to go into the question as to which there seems to be some difference of judicial opinion in this Court, namely, as to whether or not the institution of the suit itself to evict the tenant is an act by the lessor showing his intention to determine the lease or whether there must be Borne act done by him showing such intention prior to the institution of the suit. In the view we take of the case, that question does not arise. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Coxe, J. I agree.